tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5123433292175354384..comments2014-12-12T05:29:46.343-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: You Don't Need Faith to Believe The Principle of EvolutionDr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69522695203506591182007-07-14T12:48:00.000-04:002007-07-14T12:48:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis, all,here is another link about butterfl...Hi Dennis, all,<BR/>here is another link about <A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm" REL="nofollow">butterflies </A><BR/>The researchers says "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed,"Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62938062405320335682007-07-14T11:12:00.000-04:002007-07-14T11:12:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis, all,here is a link to some crickets in ...Hi Dennis, all,<BR/>here is a <A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm" REL="nofollow">link </A>to some crickets in hawaii that evolved under pressure from parasites.<BR/>The researcher that discovered it described it like this; "This is seeing evolution at work."Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36901029444186333902007-07-14T09:25:00.000-04:002007-07-14T09:25:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis,You were "defending" macro-evolution and...Hi Dennis,<BR/><B><I>You were "defending" macro-evolution and pointing to principles of micro-evolution.</B></I><BR/><BR/>The principle extends to macro-evolution necessarily. Along a continuum, it wouldn't be clear that a new species was forming until it was significantly different that it used be some time ago.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25499994825517866382007-07-14T07:59:00.000-04:002007-07-14T07:59:00.000-04:00Lee wrote:I don't see where you got that from, sor...Lee wrote:<BR/><I>I don't see where you got that from, sorry if gave you the wrong impression. I was defending Macro-evolution. Ameoba to Man.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you and this is the problem I am alluding too. You were "defending" macro-evolution and pointing to principles of micro-evolution. That's analogous to me making the specactular claim that my grass will grow taller than my house if left unmowed for 3 years and when asked for evidence, pointing to measurements of how fast it grows in a single week. Evidence for micro-evolution, which I agree happens and can be directly observed, doesn't prove macro-evolution can take place.<BR/><BR/>Spirula,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the explaination. My claim still stands that the 81% similarity between frog and human is too high for what evolution predicts. Obviously you think so too because you original dismissed my 81% claim and your knee jerk reaction was to attack me for providing misleading information.Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76858419443055876092007-07-13T11:22:00.000-04:002007-07-13T11:22:00.000-04:00First, you neglected to point out that the 81% seq...First, you neglected to point out that the 81% sequence conservation was comparing two organisms in which the sequence has been <B>fully identified</B> including genomic and peptide. I should add that the sequence homolgy between human and bovine collagen was 97%, who would have shared a common ancestor far more recently than between humans and frogs.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, to test their predictive ability to identify alignments of fragments of the collagen protein (as the authors knew there would be degradation of mastadon and T. rex collagen due protelysis etc., so fragmentary sections <B> is what they expected</B> to be dealing with), they also tested against a living organism which had not been fully sequenced (Ostrich), as a control for the mastadon and T. rex sequences.<BR/><BR/>What were their conclusions? Well, for the mastadon fragments<BR/><BR/><I>The mastodon sequences obtained were more closely related to collagen sequences from dog, bovine, human, and elephant than to nonmammalian taxa, as expected.</I> <BR/><BR/>What about T. rex fragments?<BR/><BR/><I>A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen 1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity). The small group of peptide sequence data reported here support phylogenetic hypotheses suggesting that T. rex is most closely related to birds among living organisms whose collagen sequence is present in protein databases (24–26).</I><BR/><BR/>So, the 81% is a species comparison between data bases of both known <B>genomic</B> and full peptide sequences for collagen.<BR/><BR/>The 58% for chicken vs T.rex is based on fragmented peptide sequences of collagen. No genomic sequences, which can significantly increase your ability to "fill in" peptide sequence gaps, available or involved.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that article doesn't support your assertion at all. In fact, it comes to a very different conclusions.Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22075464266428277162007-07-13T11:14:00.000-04:002007-07-13T11:14:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis,you caught me 'red handed' on the red he...Hi Dennis,<BR/>you caught me 'red handed' on the red herring!<BR/>;-) <BR/>Guilty as charged. I was just playing.<BR/>but anyway...<BR/><BR/><B><I>Lee's argument against his statement clearly is talking about evidence for micro-evolution</B></I><BR/>I don't see where you got that from, sorry if gave you the wrong impression. I was defending Macro-evolution. Ameoba to Man.<BR/><BR/>I am going to let you have the last word. I am going to move on to defend my latest <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/07/reasonable-doubt-about-holy-spirit_13.html" REL="nofollow">article.</A> <BR/><BR/>Happy Friday the 13th.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44764836272052927932007-07-13T09:46:00.000-04:002007-07-13T09:46:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53101056080774231762007-07-13T09:44:00.000-04:002007-07-13T09:44:00.000-04:00Lee and Spirula,Please see this article from which...Lee and Spirula,<BR/><BR/>Please see this article from which the 81% similarity between human and frog collagen protein comes from.<BR/><BR/>Asara, J.M., Schweitzer, M.H., Freimark, L.M., Phillips, M., and Cantley, L.C., Protein sequences from mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass spectrometry, Science 316(5822):280–285, 2007<BR/><BR/>It'll cost you $10 to access the article, but if you go to Google and do a search on "human frog collagen 81% similar", you'll see the first hit is a link to this article and the snippet: "For example, the sequence identity for collagen {alpha} 1 type 1 ( {alpha} 1t1) from human (Homo sapiens) to frog (Xenopus laevis) is 81%"<BR/><BR/>If this article looks familiar, it should because it is the same article from which you guys get your chicken protein being "similar" to t-rex protein.<BR/><BR/>It's funny, you guys call yourselves skeptics but you refuse to be skeptical of anything you've been brainwashed into believing. Somewhere, sometime, you read or heard that the chicken protein was similar to t-rex. Did you ever question it or ask to see information regarding the research that derived that? Of course not! Had you actually read the article, you would see that the chicken was only 58% similar which actually isn't very high relative to other comparisons. This article also tells you that the database they made the comparisons from is incomplete. There are a lot of other animals missing from the database that could generate a closer match than the chicken.<BR/><BR/>So my question directly to the both of you is this:<BR/><BR/>If you want to use this evidence to further bolster your belief that dinosaurs are closely related to birds, why don't you then use the same evidence to claim that frogs are even more closely related to humans? Of course, I don't actually expect an answer for this question.<BR/><BR/>Lee wrote:<BR/><I>This presumes there is a creator. I deny that there is a creator, but I will stipulate that there is one just for the sake of argument so you can tell me which creator it is and what makes you think so.</I><BR/><BR/>This is nothing more than a red herring and is silly as the following conversation:<BR/><BR/>Hunter 1: Do you see these deer tracks?<BR/>Hunter 2: I don't believe those are deer tracks. Unless you can tell me which deer made those tracks, I won't believe it.<BR/><BR/>Have I ever insisted that you tell me the exact path that evolution took? Heck, I'd be trilled if someone could just explain to me how mutations which can at best only introduce one simple change at a time can result in complex interdependent system, like the human eye. If that's too hard, then let's look at a simple limb with bones, joints, muscles, and tendons and explain how this can evolve one simple change at a time with each change producing an advantage.<BR/><BR/>Spirula wrote:<BR/><I>(notice my bold...WTF, who makes THAT claim? And I'm accused of "strawmen" (which is funny if you read what he says and then go to Jennifer"s comment on 7/10 at 7:27) . Or if he is claiming no respected scientist believe macroevolution occurs...that's just delusional. Even the ID's Saint Behe concedes that point)</I><BR/><BR/>The point I was trying to make is that I frequently see people use arguments that support micro-evolution to defend macro-evolution. Let's look at Lee's original post as one example. He quotes somebody stating something about belief in evolution requiring faith. Clearly he is talking about macro-evolution. I think most of us here on both sides understand that the principles of micro-evolution are testable and can be directly observed in our environment yet Lee's argument against his statement clearly is talking about evidence for micro-evolution. You can't extrapolate the macro from the micro. This is not a straw man argument unlike your argument which seemed to infer that creationists believe God created every species that has ever existed right from the beginning. I see this inferred extrapolation all the time. I'll see someone attacking macro-evolution and in response someone will list off evidence for the micro.Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80396729222641650732007-07-13T09:02:00.000-04:002007-07-13T09:02:00.000-04:00Jennifer,I didn't accuse you of a creating a straw...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>I didn't accuse you of a creating a strawman. I was accused of creating a strawman in my comment that was dealing with evidence of speciation, which was directed to something you said.<BR/><BR/>So you can stop pounding the desk. We're cool.Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9790882087793474962007-07-13T07:54:00.000-04:002007-07-13T07:54:00.000-04:00Spirula,you're right. I avoided that 'macroevolut...Spirula,<BR/>you're right. I avoided that 'macroevolution' comment using the 'charity principle'.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the info on the frog.<BR/><BR/>I'm done with this article, and am about ready to publish another one that I expect will keep me busy defending for a week or so.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the help.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36625340637525261612007-07-13T02:30:00.000-04:002007-07-13T02:30:00.000-04:00Spirula,(as I pound my fist against the desk) WHE...Spirula,<BR/>(as I pound my fist against the desk) WHERE IS MY STRAWMAN?!!<BR/><BR/>:)Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57483824971300183332007-07-12T13:10:00.000-04:002007-07-12T13:10:00.000-04:00sorry..."I think you're"sorry..."I think <B>you're</B>"Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5635631196781665102007-07-12T12:56:00.000-04:002007-07-12T12:56:00.000-04:00Lee,I think your wasting your time. As soon as I ...Lee,<BR/>I think your wasting your time. As soon as I saw this<BR/><BR/><I>I know a lot of people believe that evidence for micro-evolution can be extended to prove that macro-evolution can take place (i.e. small changes will accumulate to big changes <B>without bounds</B>) but I am not aware of any respected scientists who believe that.</I><BR/><BR/>(notice my bold...WTF, who makes THAT claim? And I'm accused of "strawmen" (which is funny if you read what he says and then go to Jennifer"s comment on 7/10 at 7:27) . Or if he is claiming no respected scientist believe macroevolution occurs...that's just delusional. Even the ID's Saint Behe concedes that point)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I realized it was pointless to address him. The "frog protein" is a another good example of why. There are estimated to be on the order of around a trillion proteins produced by living things. Thus 'frog protein' matching at 81% is completely non-informative and disingenious. If it is not frog collagen vs human collagen compared to chicken vs <I>T. rex</I> it's apples and oranges and completely irrelevant to anything. Some proteins are highly conserved and others are not. Cladograms are usually constructed using fairly conserved proteins (such as hemaglobin).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, good luck.Spirulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556681288241092875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56935272348255966062007-07-12T12:04:00.000-04:002007-07-12T12:04:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis,I'd like to see the data on that frog st...Hi Dennis,<BR/>I'd like to see the data on that frog stat. you threw in there.<BR/>got any links?<BR/><BR/>and one piece of data don't disprove anything, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence has convinced most of the world that evolution is true, and its even getting through to <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/07/michael-behes-version-of-intelligent.html" REL="nofollow">Behe</A>.<BR/>Are you sure you want to keep your position when your experts are changing their minds?Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72643050056509602392007-07-12T11:55:00.000-04:002007-07-12T11:55:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis,Genetic similarities also point to a des...Hi Dennis,<BR/><B><I>Genetic similarities also point to a design from a creator.</B></I><BR/>Which creator would that be? <BR/><BR/>This presumes there is a creator. I deny that there is a creator, but I will stipulate that there is one just for the sake of argument so you can tell me which creator it is and what makes you think so.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7164186509378744622007-07-12T11:45:00.000-04:002007-07-12T11:45:00.000-04:00Khebab wrote:Where do you put the frontier between...Khebab wrote:<BR/><I>Where do you put the frontier between the two kinds of evolution? I guess time scale?</I><BR/><BR/>I would place the frontier between what has been directly observed and what hasn't.<BR/><BR/><I>It seems to me that DNA analysis is connecting Micro to Macro. Small mutations in DNA are almost routinely observed in labs, so this phenomenon may qualify as micro-evolution. At the same time, strong similarities in our DNA content across species belonging to the same evolutionary branch indicate that they have been subject to different Macro-evolutions from a common ancestor.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how genetic similarities can lead you to only one possible conclusion, common descent. How could we digest a hamburger if we weren't genetically similar to the tomato, the cow that provided the meat, and the yeast in the bun? Genetic similarities also point to a design from a creator.<BR/><BR/><I>One can argue that climate/environment fluctuations (ice, etc.) or other dramatic events may have trigger radical evolution episodes (i.e. Macro-evolution).</I><BR/><BR/>I could also add fertilizer and water to my grass everyday to make it grow faster (see my analogy from my previous post) but this still doesn't overcome the boundaries of how tall grass can grow. I agree that changes to an environment can create pressure that cause evolutionary changes to occur faster. Faster mico-evolutuion doesn't equal macro-evolution.<BR/><BR/>B. H. wrote:<BR/><I>Dennis, the foundations of what you're asking for is available in the literature. Visit talkorigins.org for the basics on hominid evolution, the evolution of the eye, or evidence for "macroevolution" (and the difficulties in defining the concept in purely empirical terms).</I><BR/><BR/>I am not interested in foundations. I am interested in understanding why science can't explain how an organ like an eye with complex interdependencies can evolve one mutation at a time. Any supposed sequence of eye evolution I have ever seen takes huge leaps between the intermediate steps. I don't expect science to be able to retrace every single mutation that took place, that would be impossible. I am looking for even a hypothetical path that presents the details and shows how it could occur naturally without leaving the whole sequence up to blind faith in random processes.<BR/><BR/>Lee wrote:<BR/><I>I have to say that I see your argument as silly for three reasons.<BR/>1. Transitional fossils exist as listed below.</I><BR/>What’s the difference between a transitional fossil and non-transition fossil? If all fossil's represent some kind of transition, then what's the point?<BR/><BR/><I>- mother of all tetrapods</I><BR/>Do you mean this: <A HREF="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250" REL="nofollow">Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’</A>?<BR/><BR/>I don't understand how a fish with a few features similar to a tetrapod disproves creation. Yes, it's an important find if you accept that we evolved from fish and in my opinion the incredible lack of transitions between tetrapods and fish is still a problem. The fact that transistionals are celebrated instead of expected points to a problem with their lacking abundance.<BR/><BR/><I>- Dinosaur proteins in bone collagen similar to chickens, as Evolution predicts </I><BR/><BR/>Really? Evolution predicted that chickens would be the closest relative of the T-rex? Can you point me to when and where this prediction was made? Actually, scientists were originally very skeptical of claims of unfossilized dinosaur tissue. Since then many other examples have been found. This was a big surprise to people who accept that these fossils tens of millions years old but it wasn't a surprise to those who accept a young earth. Since the discovery of this soft tissue, many other examples have turned up. This discovery could have been made long ago if science wasn't so dogmatic in their belief that these fossils are too old to contain soft tissue.<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, the protein in all living things have similarities. It is just the chicken that was most similar and it was only 58% similar. Why isn't this higher? Doesn't evolution predict that close relatives will be more similar? Human protein is 81% similar to a frog yet we aren't closely related. Does evolution predict these types of inconsistencies? I'll bet you weren't aware the human-frog similarity was much greater than the dino-chicken. Evolution looks pretty good when you only look at evidence that supports it and ignore the evidence that is inconsistent.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, how do these few points actually address the concerns I raised over how to extrapolate macro-evolution from micro-evolution? I pointed out the difficulties in trying to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle, a non-living example used to make discussion a little easier. Science tells us mutations provide the change that natural selection picks and chooses from. Mutations can only provide very small changes. Mutation don't create limbs with interdependent bones, muscle, tendons in one step.Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74757410361781315092007-07-12T05:37:00.000-04:002007-07-12T05:37:00.000-04:00Hi Jennifer,now, now, I know that you know but I h...Hi Jennifer,<BR/>now, now, I know that you know but I hope that you know that I know that you know, ya know?<BR/>But you know there are others, that I don't know if they know what you now know that I know about what we both know. no?Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91199824603217355732007-07-12T03:57:00.000-04:002007-07-12T03:57:00.000-04:00Lee,I hope you know that I know it's not as simple...Lee,<BR/>I hope you know that I know it's not as simple as these little snippits of conversation allow. <BR/><BR/>A Juggernaut huh? Are you trying to tell me something? Hmmm.. Be glad you didn't raise me. :o)Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43937315444928647622007-07-12T02:58:00.000-04:002007-07-12T02:58:00.000-04:00Hi Jennifer,You should change your name to Juggern...Hi Jennifer,<BR/>You should change your name to Juggernaut! <BR/>;-)<BR/>Why did you throw the word observable in there? I infer that if I was interested in picking a sample of species and was able to watch them for a couple of hundred thousand years then I would say yes. But as it stands I'll commit to the title of my article an thats all I got to say about that.<BR/><BR/>Abiogenesis? no, if you mean that stuff came together and poof it was alive.<BR/>But I tow the party line of scientists when they say that simpler atoms, begat more complicated molecules that begat more complicated molecular structures that eventually acquired the property of copying themselves and getting more complicated until one day there's us and we say, "Hey, I am different than you!" I am me! The Universe is my oyster, mine, mine, mine! It was made for me, me, me!"<BR/>It fits the data. Inferences that depend on those principles have borne themselves out most of the way to getting back to finding the original 'cocktail'. There are many theories on what the ingredients of that cocktail were, and they are being tested. It may take a couple of hundred thousand years to try all possible combinations or we may find it on Mars, or the Moon, or one of saturns moons. But the principles are sound all the way back.<BR/><BR/>On one hand its true that the universe has a tendency towards entropy, but that is true only insofar as there are no forces to counteract that. Atoms and molecule interact by nature, things are 'sticky'. <BR/><BR/>There are organisms that challenge the definition of Life and in fact I have heard that the definition of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life" REL="nofollow">Life</A> is in dispute. This is one reason why I find the idea that 150 cells in a womb are a human is dubious. The definition of life has more implications than the stem cell or abortion issue, it goes all the way out to astrobiology and back into philosophy.<BR/><BR/>So its not as simple as you'ens make it out to be.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64369408785516177272007-07-11T22:52:00.000-04:002007-07-11T22:52:00.000-04:00Lee, I see what you are saying now; one does not n...Lee, I see what you are saying now; one does not need faith to believe in the observable adaptation of species or emergence of one species from another.<BR/>Is that what your are saying?, for someone like me who is being incredulous?<BR/><BR/>Does the principle of evolution also include abiogenesis?Jenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14314188298401214441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29550713243529488762007-07-11T22:24:00.000-04:002007-07-11T22:24:00.000-04:00Hi Dennis,I have to say that I see your argument a...Hi Dennis,<BR/>I have to say that I see your argument as silly for three reasons.<BR/>1. Transitional fossils exist as listed below.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061019093718.htm" REL="nofollow">- mother of all tetrapods</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040402070804.htm" REL="nofollow">- another one in a different place</A><BR/><A HREF="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html" REL="nofollow">- Dinosaur proteins in bone collagen similar to chickens, as Evolution predicts</A> <BR/>2. Why would you trust me over Dawkins?<BR/>3. You are attempting to redefine my belief in evoulution principles based on a preponderance of evidence into faith.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69607752330699418282007-07-11T18:35:00.000-04:002007-07-11T18:35:00.000-04:00Dennis, the foundations of what you're asking for ...Dennis, the foundations of what you're asking for is available in the literature. Visit talkorigins.org for the basics on hominid evolution, the evolution of the eye, or evidence for "macroevolution" (and the difficulties in defining the concept in purely empirical terms).B Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201878060264233090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15094698743235651652007-07-11T15:57:00.000-04:002007-07-11T15:57:00.000-04:00Based on the fossil record, it is extimated that 9...<I>Based on the fossil record, it is extimated that 99% of all the species that ever existed are extinct. There is no way you could place all known species (living and extinct) on the planet at the same time. No ecosystem could support that. And it violates all we know about niche adaptation (ecology). This fact alone tells us that species are evolving to fill ecological niches which are, one way or another, made available by extinction.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a straw man argument. I don’t know of any creationist that total rejects micro-evolution and claims all known species were created at the same time.Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40778383600203269712007-07-11T15:49:00.000-04:002007-07-11T15:49:00.000-04:00There are different forms of evolution. Macro-evol...<I>There are different forms of evolution. Macro-evolution, which is the kind of evolution that creationists reject, and micro-evolution which most creationists accept.</I><BR/><BR/>Where do you put the frontier between the two kinds of evolution? I guess time scale?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that DNA analysis is connecting Micro to Macro. Small mutations in DNA are almost routinely observed in labs, so this phenomenon may qualify as micro-evolution. At the same time, strong similarities in our DNA content across species belonging to the same evolutionary branch indicate that they have been subject to different Macro-evolutions from a common ancestor.<BR/><BR/>One can argue that climate/environment fluctuations (ice, etc.) or other dramatic events may have trigger radical evolution episodes (i.e. Macro-evolution).Khebabhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18250952707070950440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62241929871672348552007-07-11T15:33:00.000-04:002007-07-11T15:33:00.000-04:00Lee,You are making the same mistake that I see fre...Lee,<BR/><BR/>You are making the same mistake that I see frequently made by people arguing in favor of pond-scum-to-human evolution.<BR/><BR/>There are different forms of evolution. Macro-evolution, which is the kind of evolution that creationists reject, and micro-evolution which most creationists accept.<BR/><BR/>Almost nobody rejects micro-evolution. We can personally witness this brilliantly designed God-given ability of life to adapt in our environment and in the lab.<BR/><BR/>I know a lot of people believe that evidence for micro-evolution can be extended to prove that macro-evolution can take place (i.e. small changes will accumulate to big changes without bounds) but I am not aware of any respected scientists who believe that. That would be as foolish as stating since my grass grows at a rate of one inch per week, if left unmowed for 3 years would engulf my house. There are limits to how much micro-evolution can change just like there are limits to how long my grass will grow. In my opinion, the biggest hurdle for micro-evolution accumulating to large scale change is the fact that changes occur in very small steps and natural selection weeds out any changes that are detrimental to a species. That means partially developed features generally don't linger waiting for the next change to make it useful. Imagine trying to evolve a common bicycle into motorcycle by only adding one part at a time in such a way that each additional part you add makes the bicycle more useful. It's easy to see that you become stuck pretty quickly with no way to evolve your bicycle. How much more complex is life.<BR/><BR/>Since you claim evolution doesn't require any faith, can you tell me exactly how a human eye can evolve one step at a time? Don't bother copying Dawkin's explanation. 20 steps or however many he uses doesn't cut it. If you can't give me a hypothetical path for the evolution of a human eye, how can you claim your belief that it happened via evolution doesn't require some kind of faith?Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.com